Somerville, Mass to recognize polyamorous partnerships

[Cisairse]

Yes. Is there a problem?

You support a domestic terror group that wants me beaten to a bloody pulp, and has beaten people like me to a bloody pulp. Advocating violence against the innocent is never okay, much less making statements that support terrorists.

Okay wait a second, dropping the facetiousness for a moment — while I do support antifa, what does my sig have to do with it? Do you mean the passage on the left? That's from a song released in 2007.

Moving on from that, terrorism is not inherently bad.

Your support of incest needs no explanation as to why it is wrong.

I disagree; there is nothing inherently wrong with incest.

[Diopolis]

what the fuck do you mean by that

That you are expressing rejection of something's existence, followed by an in-depth explanation of why said thing exists. It's not so much that you object to patriarchy theory as you object to the use of the term "patriarchy theory." It's Orwellian in the sense of the type of linguistic euphemisms used by the government in 1984.

That's not what he did. He was objecting to the idea of patriarchy theory. He did explain that men and women want to mate in different ways, but that's not technically patriarchy.

[Kowani]

Good. We should run down the slope.

I'll note that except for the bottom of the slippery slope, it is legal to do whatever it is you want on the slope unless you happen to be in Saudi Arabia. There just isn't state support for it. I'm not sure why you need it.

Shrug. I’m actually personally very orthodox in my own life and self expression. I just see no reason (and no, the health of society is not a compelling reason) to prevent others from doing the same.

Good. We should run down the slope.

this is an unsurprising take from someone who said rape is not intrinsically wrong[/quote]
I’m still waiting for an argument on that, by the way.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

IIRC he's a protestant fundamentalist who thinks men having many wives is fine but not women having many husbands because biblical literalism.

I am absolutely celibate (my critics call me asexual), not a polygamist. I am saying that the Bible is clear that taking many wives is not a sin. The Bible also says, however, that monogamy is superior. Adam had but one wife- Eve -even though he obviously had to have incestuous sex out of wedlock.

Monogamy is so preferred that clergymen were forbidden to have more than one wife. Neither the Elders, the Deacons, nor the Overseers (the three Holy Orders of the Church), comprising the Biblical list of clergymen, were allowed to take more than one wife.

[Cekoviu]

yes, they have. and?

uhhh im not sure how you can oppose polyamory but not polygamy tbh given that they're essentially the same thing but with different legal recognition

no, i do not think the mormons will do that.

IIRC he's a protestant fundamentalist who thinks men having many wives is fine but not women having many husbands because biblical literalism.

that's stupid lol

this is an unsurprising take from someone who said rape is not intrinsically wrong

I’m still waiting for an argument on that, by the way.

1. fix ur quote tags
2. what

[Diopolis]

I'll note that except for the bottom of the slippery slope, it is legal to do whatever it is you want on the slope unless you happen to be in Saudi Arabia. There just isn't state support for it. I'm not sure why you need it.

Shrug. I’m actually personally very orthodox in my own life and self expression. I just see no reason (and no, the health of society is not a compelling reason) to prevent others from doing the same.

I mean, banning a few .9 TFR dog moms from being thots in some hyper-liberal coastal town is probably a waste of police resources.
Now as for why we have to provide social support for these things, as opposed to leaving them in a corner to argue with each other, I've never gotten a coherent explanation for.

[Cisairse]

I’m still waiting for an argument on that, by the way.

Rape is a non-consensual power structure that does not protect from the existence of other non-consensual power structures. Therefore it is inherently wrong.

[Punished UMN]

I'll note that except for the bottom of the slippery slope, it is legal to do whatever it is you want on the slope unless you happen to be in Saudi Arabia. There just isn't state support for it. I'm not sure why you need it.

Shrug. I’m actually personally very orthodox in my own life and self expression. I just see no reason (and no, the health of society is not a compelling reason) to prevent others from doing the same.

I am close friends with someone who is very similar to you in that respect, so I will tell you what I told her: "there is a point to maintaining social orthodoxy because while the occasional defection from social norms is not a big deal, normalized defection from social norms becomes the social norm."

[Cisairse]

Shrug. I’m actually personally very orthodox in my own life and self expression. I just see no reason (and no, the health of society is not a compelling reason) to prevent others from doing the same.

I am close friends with someone who is very similar to you in that respect, so I will tell you what I told her: "there is a point to maintaining social orthodoxy because while the occasional defection from social norms is not a big deal, normalized defection from social norms becomes the social norm."

You haven't really explained why this is problematic, though.

[Diopolis]

IIRC he's a protestant fundamentalist who thinks men having many wives is fine but not women having many husbands because biblical literalism.

I am absolutely celibate (my critics call me asexual), not a polygamist. I am saying that the Bible is clear that taking many wives is not a sin. The Bible also says, however, that monogamy is superior. Adam had but one wife- Eve -even though he obviously had to have incestuous sex out of wedlock.

There's no evidence for the latter bit. The bible is very clear that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters(traditions mostly hold that it was a low-triple digit number of unnamed children, which seems to be implied by the punishment of Eve[that your births will be multiplied]), and it's strongly implied that they incestuously bred with one another, not their papa.

[Punished UMN]

I’m still waiting for an argument on that, by the way.

Rape is a non-consensual power structure that does not protect from the existence of other non-consensual power structures. Therefore it is inherently wrong.

Kowani does not believe that those statements logically follow from one-another.

[Cisairse]

Rape is a non-consensual power structure that does not protect from the existence of other non-consensual power structures. Therefore it is inherently wrong.

Kowani does not believe that those statements logically follow from one-another.

Well, then Kowani is wrong.

[Punished UMN]

Kowani does not believe that those statements logically follow from one-another.

Well, then Kowani is wrong.

I don't disagree, but to play devil's advocate, please show your work.

[Diopolis]

Rape is a non-consensual power structure that does not protect from the existence of other non-consensual power structures. Therefore it is inherently wrong.

Kowani does not believe that those statements logically follow from one-another.

TBF, I don't either- there are other reasons to consider rape an act of evil.

[Cisairse]

Well, then Kowani is wrong.

I don't disagree, but to play devil's advocate, please show your work.

I could delve into pages upon pages of theoretical ethics and metaphysics and whatnot but I really can't be bothered to do that in a non-academic setting so I'll just leave it at "Kowani is wrong"

[Kowani]

Shrug. I’m actually personally very orthodox in my own life and self expression. I just see no reason (and no, the health of society is not a compelling reason) to prevent others from doing the same.

I mean, banning a few .9 TFR dog moms from being thots in some hyper-liberal coastal town is probably a waste of police resources.
Now as for why we have to provide social support for these things, as opposed to leaving them in a corner to argue with each other, I've never gotten a coherent explanation for.

Shrug. We don’t technically have to.
Mind you, I support the abolition of marriage anyway, so I don’t actually have a dog in this fight.

1. fix ur quote tags
2. what

Last time we did this, your argument was literally “I’m god lol”

Kowani does not believe that those statements logically follow from one-another.

Well, then Kowani is wrong.

How convincing.

[Fahran]

good, it should all be legal

I don't dislike you, Cisairse, but I sincerely hope you never get to formulate social policies.

Good. We should run down the slope.

That seems profoundly anti-social. It'll also give the reactionaries and the revolutionary right a good deal more clout than they presently have.

[Cekoviu]

1. fix ur quote tags
2. what

Last time we did this, your argument was literally “I’m god lol”

setting aside the fact that that is not an accurate representation, can u actually conclusively disprove the argument that i am god?

[Fahran]

You haven't really explained why this is problematic, though.

We have but you seem to have ignored most of the arguments about the social dysfunctions that would occur.

On the religious arguments, I provided an brief analysis of why polyamory/polygamy is problematic from a Jewish perspective and why it has largely fallen out of practice - even among the segments of the Diaspora that do not have a formal ban on it. Rabbi Gershom's arguments on the matter, which justified the ban on polygamy among the Ashkenazim, largely speak to social considerations even as they appeal to the Torah. Judaism has never held polygamy to be ideal though. We get that from the resentment between Rachel and Leah in the Torah and in Talmudic sources. So it's not a sin but it's still not really a virtue. And, from a secular standpoint, we have plenty of reasons to ban it.

[Kowani]

Good. We should run down the slope.

That seems profoundly anti-social. It'll also give the reactionaries and the revolutionary right a good deal more clout than they presently have.

Any change gives reactionaries a chance to yell at skittish moderates and try to convert them. But the actual number of people who engage-or desire to engage in unorthodox behavior is exceedingly small, which makes any fearmongering attempt much less effective, since reactionaries are still BBY and large, outside and hostile to the institutions they would need to effect large social change-most accurately, the media and large corporations, since those two things are very friendly (at least superficially so, there’s more profit in minorities than neo-Nazis), and that’s not liable to change.

Last time we did this, your argument was literally “I’m god lol”

setting aside the fact that that is not an accurate representation, can u actually conclusively disprove the argument that i am god?

A claim for which you have presented absolutely no evidence, because unsurprisingly, you can’t prove it at all.

[Diopolis]

I mean, banning a few .9 TFR dog moms from being thots in some hyper-liberal coastal town is probably a waste of police resources.
Now as for why we have to provide social support for these things, as opposed to leaving them in a corner to argue with each other, I've never gotten a coherent explanation for.

Shrug. We don’t technically have to.
Mind you, I support the abolition of marriage anyway, so I don’t actually have a dog in this fight.

Fair enough.

[Fahran]

Any change gives reactionaries a chance to yell at skittish moderates and try to convert them.

Yes, and you're giving the moderates a good deal more reason to side with the hardline reactionaries in this instance as you prove them right about everything they've said since the 1960s.

But the actual number of people who engage-or desire to engage in unorthodox behavior is exceedingly small,

Plenty of people engage in extramarital affairs at the moment. Government acknowledgement, more permissive sexual mores, and the normalization of polygamy could quite easily result in something akin to concubinage becoming once more a custom among social elites with the means to attract and support multiple spouses. The middle-classes might even begin to emulate social elites as they have done on previous issues. We're still very much defined by patriarchal attitudes as well so there's a not zero possibility that we wind up looking a little bit like a liberal version of the Saudis.

which makes any fearmongering attempt much less effective, since reactionaries are still BBY and large, outside and hostile to the institutions they would need to effect large social change-most accurately, the media and large corporations, since those two things are very friendly (at least superficially so, there’s more profit in minorities than neo-Nazis), and that’s not liable to change.

If the social dysfunctions surrounding polygamy become a fact of life here, I think the reactionaries would have the moral high ground to be honest and would be perfectly correct in wanting to repress libertinism to a more manageable level.

[Kowani]

Any change gives reactionaries a chance to yell at skittish moderates and try to convert them.

Yes, and you're giving the moderates a good deal more reason to side with the hardline reactionaries in this instance as you prove them right about everything they've said since the 1960s.

Not really? Most people who would be swayed by anything like this are already going to be taken by the reactionaries anyway. Polyamory just isn’t an electoral issue. It’s not even on anyone’s radar.

But the actual number of people who engage-or desire to engage in unorthodox behavior is exceedingly small,

Plenty of people engage in extramarital affairs at the moment.

…Do you think that having an affair counts as unorthodox behavior?

Government acknowledgement, more permissive sexual mores, and the normalization of polygamy could quite easily result in something akin to concubinage becoming once more a custom among social elites with the means to attract and support multiple spouses. The middle-classes might even begin to emulate social elites as they have done on previous issues.

No, they’re more likely to see it as elite decadence then anything else, since most middle class people tend to be more conservative on sexual matters, since the group most likely to call themselves middle class is more likely to be elderly. You’re extrapolating trends based on patterns that no longer hold true.

We're still very much defined by patriarchal attitudes as well so there's a not zero possibility that we wind up looking a little bit like a liberal version of the Saudis.

The generation most likely to accept polyamory is substantially younger, egalitarian, and just generally more socially liberal then you seem to think it is.

which makes any fearmongering attempt much less effective, since reactionaries are still BBY and large, outside and hostile to the institutions they would need to effect large social change-most accurately, the media and large corporations, since those two things are very friendly (at least superficially so, there’s more profit in minorities than neo-Nazis), and that’s not liable to change.

If the social dysfunctions surrounding polygamy become a fact of life here, I think the reactionaries would have the moral high ground to be honest and would be perfectly correct in wanting to repress libertinism to a more manageable level.

You seem to think reactionaries are motivated by polyamory. They’re not. It can be a motivator, but it’s in no way their driving force or their primary object of repression.

[Cisairse]

good, it should all be legal

I don't dislike you, Cisairse, but I sincerely hope you never get to formulate social policies.

I generally take opposition from reactionaries as a sign that I am doing something right.

You haven't really explained why this is problematic, though.

We have but you seem to have ignored most of the arguments about the social dysfunctions that would occur.

On the religious arguments, I provided an brief analysis of why polyamory/polygamy is problematic from a Jewish perspective and why it has largely fallen out of practice - even among the segments of the Diaspora that do not have a formal ban on it. Rabbi Gershom's arguments on the matter, which justified the ban on polygamy among the Ashkenazim, largely speak to social considerations even as they appeal to the Torah. Judaism has never held polygamy to be ideal though. We get that from the resentment between Rachel and Leah in the Torah and in Talmudic sources. So it's not a sin but it's still not really a virtue.

The views of religion are completely meaningless to me. You might as well have told me that polyamory is bad because a rock you found on the sidewalk was etched with words that told you so.

And, from a secular standpoint, we have plenty of reasons to ban it.

Like what?

UMN's bit about social influence becoming concentrated was somewhat compelling, but becomes less so when you realize that the alternative is to admit that some people should be forced to marry people whom they would not choose to marry in a free society, and I react to that idea with great animosity.

[Punished UMN]

I don't dislike you, Cisairse, but I sincerely hope you never get to formulate social policies.

I generally take opposition from reactionaries as a sign that I am doing something right.

We have but you seem to have ignored most of the arguments about the social dysfunctions that would occur.

On the religious arguments, I provided an brief analysis of why polyamory/polygamy is problematic from a Jewish perspective and why it has largely fallen out of practice - even among the segments of the Diaspora that do not have a formal ban on it. Rabbi Gershom's arguments on the matter, which justified the ban on polygamy among the Ashkenazim, largely speak to social considerations even as they appeal to the Torah. Judaism has never held polygamy to be ideal though. We get that from the resentment between Rachel and Leah in the Torah and in Talmudic sources. So it's not a sin but it's still not really a virtue.

The views of religion are completely meaningless to me. You might as well have told me that polyamory is bad because a rock you found on the sidewalk was etched with words that told you so.

And, from a secular standpoint, we have plenty of reasons to ban it.

Like what?

UMN's bit about social influence becoming concentrated was somewhat compelling, but becomes less so when you realize that the alternative is to admit that some people should be forced to marry people whom they would not choose to marry in a free society, and I react to that idea with great animosity.

My response to that is that social scarcity limits freedom necessarily, of course, but economic scarcity limits it far more, and in a society in which polyamory is legal (and not simply decriminalized), economic scarcity can become a far greater tool of coercion than social scarcity (i.e. smaller number of desirable partners) could ever be. What is more free? Settling for a partner you don't want to marry in order to not be alone, or marrying someone with a higher economic station because otherwise you could never pay off your debts? Neither are without some level of intrinsic coercion, but one is less coercive than the other.